Next week I will be attending the National CHADD Conference in Costa Mesa, California; a conference I have attended annually since 2008. I will be presenting two sessions at the conference: Teaching Grit, Perseverance, and Frustration Tolerance to Children and Adolescents and The Value and Practice of Teaching Children How to Have a Productive Conversation.
We must recognize the tremendous efforts of CHADD’s Public Policy Committee, along with the Professional Advisory Board, without whose diligent efforts this would not have happened. Below are the main facets that were clarified.
- The new Guidance states that Section 504 requires school districts to appropriately and timely evaluate and identify students suspected of having ADHD to determine if they are “students with a disability” who need special education or related aids or services to meet their educational needs as well as nondisabled students’ needs are met.
- The Guidance states that examples of a major life activity that could be substantially limited by ADHD include concentrating, reading, thinking, and other functions of the brain. Therefore, if an evaluation determines that a student has ADHD, that student has an impairment for purposes of Section 504. A student with a diagnosis of ADHD is presumed to be a student with a disability.
- Mitigating measures, such as medication, extra tutoring or unusual effort are not a basis for exclusion from eligibility if the student’s disability still substantially limits one or more major life activities
- A determination that a student is ineligible under IDEA doesn’t mean that they may not be eligible under Section 504.
- Students whose academic performance is adequate to above average, but are impacted by their AD/HD in other ways and/or have behavioral or social problems without specific academic difficulty, may still be eligible for 504 protections. Referral should occur for behavior even if not related to academics.
- Schools have an obligation to avoid discounting impact due to an ability to hyper-focus for preferred tasks.
- Use of Response to Intervention (RTI) programs should not interfere with access to 504 protections. Schools should neither rigidly adhere to the steps of RTI programs as a predicate for evaluation nor categorically require the collection of intervention data as a part of an evaluation.
- A medical assessment is not required in order to identify a student as having ADHD for purposes of 504 eligibility, but if a school district decides it is necessary, it must be provided at no cost to the parent. The district cannot make a parent responsible for necessary elements or cost of the evaluation.
- School districts must avoid making decisions about evaluation or eligibility that reflect mistaken assumptions based on gender, race or ethnicity.
- Extensive analysis is not required to determine if someone has a disability because schools must consider the presence of a disability broadly.
- 504 Services are not and should not be limited to services that are free or low cost to the district and can include services that are also provided under IDEA, such as special education or related series, if such services are necessary to receive an appropriate education under section 504.